Army equipment that shouldn't have seen service

While it wasn't unreliable or terrible per se, the Kanonenjagdpanzer:
1584913292365.png

Designed as a gun-based tank destroyer/fire support vehicle to compliment the Raketenjagdpanzer at short ranges, it is certainly mobile and low profile, but it's so conventional in guntank layout it seems to have been designed as a cheap vehicle. The use of a 90mm gun is questionnable when the gun is brand new and it uses Patton ammo. If it's to be cheap why not fit the guns from the M47 Pattons Germany was retiring? Alternatively, wouldn't it be cheaper and somewhat less of a industrial burden to rebuild M47s/and/or M48s with diesel engines and L7A3 guns, which would get you a good bang for the buck?
 
No 'Starship' M60A2 or the 152mm gun launcher system

over 500 of these turds built. in service for around 6 years
And over 1K Sheridans that handle the recoil even worse...
And to think the US spent all money on this instead of upgrading the TOW and improving the M60A1 with new sights, night vision devices, more modern stabilizers and simply a newer turret (possibly based on MBT-70 tech) as well as a better engine and new suspension like tube-over-bar...

Heck, while the US was fucking around with prototypes Germany was getting thermal shrouds, image intensifiers for the driver, panoramic sights and welded turrets with spaced armor on the Leopard 1A3 or 1A4.
1584915292227.png

If only...
 
1930s-1940s:
- Germany - anything heavier than the Tiger; any cannon beyond 210mm; most if not all of their semi-auto rifles
- France - not sure what to do with tanks that have just 1 man in the turret
- S.U: KV-2
- Italy: the Breda LMG; tankettes were a joke against anyone that actually was in 20th century

Cold war:
- UK: SA-80 rifle
- S.U: ZSU-57-2
 
1930s-1940s:
- Germany - anything heavier than the Tiger; any cannon beyond 210mm; most if not all of their semi-auto rifles
- France - not sure what to do with tanks that have just 1 man in the turret
- S.U: KV-2
- Italy: the Breda LMG; tankettes were a joke against anyone that actually was in 20th century

Cold war:
- UK: SA-80 rifle
- S.U: ZSU-57-2
KV-2 was not a completely useless tank.
A lone KV-2 held up an entire Panzer division for 3-4 days in OP Barbarossa.
Better employment could have slowed the German advance for longer.
And by German cannons do you mean railroad guns and co.?
 
KV-1. And it was about 24 hours for part of the battle:
The entire battle lasted about 4 days, but the KV tank was only part of the battle and only participated for about 24 hours.
On Tank Encyclopedia there's a German photo of a captured KV-2 with lots of shell marks on it and the caption says that it's the Raseiniai KV.
And 24 hrs is not bad consider how badly the rest of the Red Army was doing.
 
On Tank Encyclopedia there's a German photo of a captured KV-2 with lots of shell marks on it and the caption says that it's the Raseiniai KV.
And 24 hrs is not bad consider how badly the rest of the Red Army was doing.
I'd be careful about pictures on the internet being labeled accurately:
1584930450331.png


You have to consider what happened at Raseiniai it in the context of it being a massive multi-corps, multi-day melee involving hundreds of tanks. The incident with the 1 KV was only possible because of how much attention was devoted elsewhere. To put that 1 tank in context the Soviets lost over 700 AFVs during the battle.
 


The M60 GPMG. In Australian service it was defeated during the competition to replace the Bren LMG by the FN MAG58. A political decision was made by politicians to allow "interoperablity" with US forces as so we ended up with the M60 GPMG. The M60 in turn was replaced by, guess what? The FN MAG58 in 1989... A decision that was based upon reliability and ROF.


The M16 series of rifle in Australian Army service. Chosen, during the Vietnam War to replace the Owen SMG, the M16 was in many ways a disaster. It was unreliable, it used to spit magazines when firing blanks and it used to foul excessively with it's Llungmann direct gas impingement system. It should have been abandoned as soon as it appeared on the scene but it wasn't. Thankfully it never replaced the service rifle the L1a1. A favourite amongst the gun boys and the SASR simply because of the Gucci stuff you can hang off it.
 

The M16 series of rifle in Australian Army service. Chosen, during the Vietnam War to replace the Owen SMG, the M16 was in many ways a disaster. It was unreliable, it used to spit magazines when firing blanks and it used to foul excessively with it's Llungmann direct gas impingement system. It should have been abandoned as soon as it appeared on the scene but it wasn't. Thankfully it never replaced the service rifle the L1a1. A favourite amongst the gun boys and the SASR simply because of the Gucci stuff you can hang off it.
Were the issues from the same causes as the problems in US service? If that's the case, it's not really the gun's fault; the AR platform is extremely reliable if you don't use the wrong powder in the cartridge.
 
The M73/M219 and M85 tank MGs, as well as the M1 and M19 cupolas on M48 and M60 Pattons. The M73 was a disaster because the receiver was too small and light and the action too fast so it would wear very rapidly, M85 seems to have been too complex and unreliable too. Considering that FN MAGs were already available and would be adopted 20 years later, and that M37 (M1919) MGs were reliable and could be converted to 7.62 NATO, and finally that 7.62 tank MGs don't care much about size and weight, the US shouldn't have been using a crap MG for this long.

The M1 cupola was downright atrocious, too small, not good enough observation, the M2 Browning is on the side and insanely hard to reload and if you reload it you only have 50 rounds (granted, some genius apparently made the longer belts work, somehow). The M19 was a bit better but still suboptimal. I also have serious issues with a cupola 12.7 at this point because it's pretty much useless against planes, heloes would just wander out of range with missiles, the only benefit is extra performance against infantry behind cover but frankly it would be more ergonomic to have a 7.62 operated by either the commander or the loader on top if needed, and a 7.62 or 12.7 coax to deal with infantry in cover (or just use the freaking gun and stop issuing weak HESH or HEAT for the anti-inf role and make proper HE!).

Last reason I dislike that kind of cupola: the commander is supposed to command/and/or range, stop giving him more to do. A tank with a commander that observes the battlefield and commands is better than one whose commander is shooting all the time, which is frankly no better than a 2-man turret with some extra dude shooting an MG and only a gunner and loader. Bonus point: getting a regular low-profile cupola (whether it counterrotates or not) will reduce the height of the tank, reduce weight by several hundred kgs, reduce torque on that side of the turret, and it avoids getting the commander killed by a hitcin the cupola.
 
Were the issues from the same causes as the problems in US service? If that's the case, it's not really the gun's fault; the AR platform is extremely reliable if you don't use the wrong powder in the cartridge.
As far as I am concerned, as a user, I want to be issued with a weapon that works. The M16 as far as I was concerned did not. I much preferred being issued with either an L1a1 of an F1 SMG than the POS that the M16 represented. I have handled XM16s, M16s and M16a1s. All shared the same problems.
 
As far as I am concerned, as a user, I want to be issued with a weapon that works. The M16 as far as I was concerned did not. I much preferred being issued with either an L1a1 of an F1 SMG than the POS that the M16 represented. I have handled XM16s, M16s and M16a1s. All shared the same problems.
The gun's not a PoS because the army issued it with the wrong powder and without cleaning kits. That's their fault, not the gun's. After the army's unforced errors were fixed, the M16 was arguably the best service rifle in the world. The highly enclosed system is great at keeping mud, dust etc away from the working surfaces; it's light and slim; the caliber was highly lethal; recoil was low; the ammo was light; it's a naturally accurate gun. The vast majority of US soldiers preferred it to the M14 for a lot of very good reasons.

 
The gun's not a PoS because the army issued it with the wrong powder and without cleaning kits. That's their fault, not the gun's. After the army's unforced errors were fixed, the M16 was arguably the best service rifle in the world. The highly enclosed system is great at keeping mud, dust etc away from the working surfaces; it's light and slim; the caliber was highly lethal; recoil was low; the ammo was light; it's a naturally accurate gun. The vast majority of US soldiers preferred it to the M14 for a lot of very good reasons.
I don't care where the fault is. I care if the weapon works. The XM16/M16/M16a1s that I and most other diggers were issued with were POS. It did not work. QED.

Now, if you can transport yourself back in time and you can convince the powers that be in the Australian Army that they are using bad ammunition with the weapon, I look forward to your efforts. IMO, it is a clumsy weapon. It is a badly designed weapon. It fouls too much, it spits magazines when firing blanks and it required me to remove my "master hand" from the pistol grip to cock it as per the Training Pam.
 
The Sten Gun did good service for the British Commonwealth, but it was a last ditch weapon and should not have been needed. The British Army's pig headed refusal to even consider adopting a "Gangster Gun" before WWII was nothing less than stupidity. A properly designed SMG brought into service prewar would only have been a good thing.
 
Top